Richard, Olafur; Just reread your draft and had a question.
Would it be worthwhile to formalize a default result-set for an ANY query in your draft? Seems like there is a great disparity among implementations and as pointed out in your draft clients looking to save calories with a single query still require fallback logic “just in case” they don’t get what is expected. Since this draft defines 3 alternate methods for determining responses, a 4th could formally define “normal”. Just a thought. BTW: like the idea of a the flag to better control intent. Thanks, John From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gibson Because without such a signal, humans using ANY for legitimate diagnostic purposes have no means of differentiating section 4.1/4.3 "subset" responses from conventional responses where there just happen to be only a small number of RRSets at the queried name, encouraging (or at least doing nothing to dissuade) a conclusion that the response is in fact conventional and complete. On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Ólafur Guðmundsson <ola...@cloudflare.com<mailto:ola...@cloudflare.com>> wrote: Thank you for your comments Q: why do you think it is useful to complicate things with a EDNS0 flag ? Olafur -- THESE ARE THE DROIDS TO WHOM I REFER: This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
